Topic: Project Updates Discussion: Mike Elledge provided an update o=
n current projects. Key issues are whether ad hoc groups are going to be im=
plemented in version 2.1. Mike reported that there is a critical discussion=
occurring on August 8 and sectioning teams are not a part of it. The meeti=
ng will be between the various players who will make sure that the sectioni=
ng tool and the course management API will line up.

=20

There are sufficient resources to put the accessibility enhancements int=
o 2.1, but until the review is completed it is hard to tell how much effort=
has to be put into this activity as opposed to the amount of time the deve=
lopers are available. Carol Dippel has indicated that if it can't be comple=
ted by November 15, it will be released as an improvements patch in January=
.

=20

Joseph asked if the project was on track for the October 15 freeze of ve=
rsion 2.1. Mike responded that as long as we restrict the scope to sectioni=
ng and not ad hoc, it is on track. For the sake of clarity, ad hoc groups a=
re defined as the ability of a project to set up a sub-group. Without group=
s being built in, instructors can set up sections but would not be able to =
set up groups within sections. The issue is really one of resources. The se=
ctioning group feels that using the current resources they have they can co=
mplete the API, but cannot do the group tool or make changes to the section=
ing tool to accommodate groups.

=20

Dropped from 2.1 is legacy tool refactoring. A small number of the legac=
y tools were not refactored last time around. Those tools are not going to =
be refactored due to lack of resources. Most of the tools have been refacto=
red with 2.0.1 and the admin tools will be refactored for sectioning so the=
re's only a couple of things that won't get revised.

=20

Brad questioned Mike, "Are you saying that 2.1 with sectioning means tha=
t if a registrar has 3 sections registered this will allow them to interact=
more as one." Mike confirmed that as his understanding. Brad continued, as=
king if an instructor teaches 3 section but only wants to post slides one t=
ime, would that be possible, or would it require 3 distinct sets of changes=
. Mike responded that the instructor would be able to decide whether one or=
all of the sections would be able to receive the changes. Joseph asked=
Mike to provide two paragraphs advising the board of what would be availab=
le in 2.1.

=20

Actions/Decisions: =C2=BF Joseph encouraged board members to ask qu=
estions on this issue and send them in the form of a use case to Mike so he=
can reply to each individual instance. =C2=BF Mike, working with Olive=
r, will provide two paragraphs to answer Brad's question and inform the boa=
rd. The question, for clarification, is: can an instructor take an action o=
ne time and have it appear in multiple sections. Will that functionality be=
in place? =C2=BF Mike agreed to provide a synopsis of the August 7 mee=
ting that speaks directly to the use cases of that meeting. As Mike will be=
out of the office on both Monday and Tuesday, he will ask Oliver to comple=
te this request.

=20

Topic: Bug Fixes Discussion: Mara inquired about general bug fixes, =
with regard to how resources are prioritized on them. Since there are a lar=
ge number in Jira, she asked whether we are just focusing on the next featu=
res or are we working on others. In response, Joseph suggested that the boa=
rd read Carol Dipple's recent email with regard to what is currently being =
done. It doesn't provide all of the answers, but does provide some of them.=
Mike noted that bug fixing is being overseen by John Leasia; Joanne and Je=
n are working on C-Tools bugs, but these are often Sakai bugs, and they are=
also fixing uniquely Sakai bugs as well as time permits.

=20

Decision: Mike will report back to the board on what plans currently exi=
st for fixing bugs and getting those fixes back into local instances of Sak=
ai.

=20

Topic: Austin Conference Discussion: Joseph reported on the recent s=
ite visit to the hotel in Austin. The Hilton Austin is a very large hotel w=
ith a far different feel than Baltimore. Because the space is so large the =
challenge will be to create intimate space for the DGs and break-outs so th=
at the discussions on the side can take place on a more human scale and all=
ow for detailed, thoughtful conversations to take place. We are still worki=
ng with the hotel to try and identify smaller spaces that might be availabl=
e.

=20

The conference space on the 6th floor has 3 lounge areas off the main ha=
llway. These can be segregated to some extend with partitioning. Brad sugge=
sted a poster session, using the posters to partition and privatize those a=
reas for break-outs. Brad also suggested a competition for posters around t=
he theme of "what does Sakai mean at your institution." The hotel has guara=
nteed their wireless but we will probably bring our own as well. They had o=
ne 6-hour down period during the night, but it was back up in the morning. =
It is adequate to serve 1000 people during a conference.

=20

The surrounding environs are easy enough to walk in, but in December it =
will depend on the weather. During the site visit Joseph, Susan and Mary vi=
sited the UT-Austin Alumni Center, the site for Thursday's reception and de=
monstrations. Buses will be provided from the hotel to the reception, but i=
f the weather cooperates walking is not difficult.

=20

Lois asked if we were planning a call for proposals. Mara, program chair=
responded that this should be done. Mara continued that a program committe=
e is being formed and they will meet in the next couple of weeks to get the=
basic tracks defined. Brad stated that the OSP people are getting concerne=
d and asking how many days and times will be available for their program. B=
rad asked that Jeff Haywood be a part of the program committee to represent=
OSP and serve as an OSP interface.

=20

Joseph continued that registration will open on September 15. By October=
15, we should have a good idea how many people we will have there. The cut=
-off date for the conference rate at the hotel of $129 per night is Novembe=
r 19.

=20

Actions/Decisions: =C2=BF Mary will send floor plans for the hotel t=
o the Board. =C2=BF A pre-call for sessions will go out with the progra=
m committee announcement. Suggestions should be sent to either Mara or a pr=
ogram representative. =C2=BF Remind everyone to register early.

=20

Topic: Educause Conference Discussion: Planning is actively underway=
. Lois has been working with SunGuard to have a presence in their booth on =
the show floor. This will probably lead to a call for volunteers to spend t=
ime in the booth or suite. This will also be a great use of our suite.

=
=20

Topic: Articles of Incorporation Discussion: Joseph reported on curr=
ent activities for this topic. There has been an ongoing discussion among t=
he 4 schools counsels, provosts, and various other people. The public discu=
ssion needs to be invigorated as soon as possible. There are three separate=
pieces of this conversation: the articles of incorporation, transfer of IT=
, and agreement on the bylaws. A couple schools feel they should have more =
input into the board as they are providing resources - more of an instituti=
onal voice at the table, not an individual. Joseph responded that because t=
he institution had devoted resources, that was how they would have a large =
amount of influence, not through any special arrangements concerning board =
seats. Brad responded that he was very uncomfortable electing a board seat =
from an institution. If that is the case, you have no idea who the represen=
tative will be and it could change the dynamics of the board. Babi said tha=
t MIT believes that this should be an institutional commitment and not an i=
ndividual commitment. Brad replied that this seems to hinge on whether the =
Sakai Foundation is an independent entity which needs its own independent g=
uidance. If it becomes a legal 501c3, directors have to be bound to make th=
e best decisions for the foundation.

=20

Joseph suggested sending around a set of by-laws. These are still in a d=
raft state and need additional input from our independent counsel. Some ite=
ms included will be a set of options that people can discuss and consider, =
including limitation of the number of members on the board that can come fr=
om commercial organizations, each organization gets 1 vote with rolling ele=
ctions, board term are 2 years or 3 years so there is enough opportunity fo=
r renewing the board. This will be sent out for review and input from the p=
artners and core schools so that we can get everyone behind the final decis=
ion when it is made. Joseph wants to put this up on confluence asap.

=20

Lois noted that at the moment, the question of transferring copyright am=
ong the 4 schools is taking place. The difficult part will be to get the at=
torneys involved in a conversation. The general conversation should be arou=
nd articles/by-laws and IP as two separate issues.

=20

Brad reported on his meeting with university counsel. IU agreed that Bra=
d should indeed act in the capacity of an individual with respect to the Sa=
kai Foundation Board. There is a precedent for that at IU. As additional in=
formation on the IP front, Brad reported the view of one of the law faculty=
. That faculty member stated that an individual owner of a jointly held und=
ivided copyright can proceed and do anything that is non-exclusive. They ca=
n issue a copyright license, etc. If they want to fully assign the ownershi=
p or if they want to issue a single exclusive copyright license, then it re=
quires the agreement of the 4 schools. All agreed that the foundation will =
benefit from a clean lineage of code in terms of copyright in order to proc=
eed. Brad responded that if the foundation only picks up existing copyright=
s, any future development would have a Sakai copyright, but anything prior =
to December 31, 2005 would carry the old copyright. Joseph pointed out the =
foundation could proceed either way, though the transfer of a copyright lic=
ense would be much preferred.

=20

There appear to be three options: 1. Go with the current ECL license=
, and the current copyright holders. New code that comes out of the foundat=
ion carries Sakai Foundation (vs. 4 schools) copyright. 2. UI and UM ha=
nd over the copyright license to the foundation. 3. Get agreement among=
all four schools.

=20

Joseph suggested that he send around the by-laws for review. They will b=
e sent to everyone who attended the conference. A poll will be taken and ho=
pe to come to resolution. This polling will take place for three weeks with=
the idea of getting as much agreement as possible.

=20

Jeff suggested that if the members were signing as individuals, home add=
resses should be used, not institutional addresses. Joseph agreed.

=20

Actions/Decision: =C2=BF Joseph will send by-laws out for review. =C2=BF At the end of a three-week period, the board will review the comme=
nts and make decisions on issues that arise.